No Wonder the Council of Nicaea Banned This Gospel

[TreacherousCretin]

@Thudlow_Boink

tomndebb, thank you for posting those corrections, but I think you should have done so as a poster and not as a moderator. As I understand it, it’s not the moderators’ job to be the Accuracy Police.

It looked to me as if the poster in question had been disingenuously pushing buttons all along. I’m surprised the (mild) slapdown didn’t come sooner.

[tomndebb]

@SeekerofTruth

SBut I don’t see the controversy about the dating. The text existed in 175 and was one of the thousands of texts that came up for review in 325 at the Council.

This is utterly false. No texts regarded as scripture “came up for review” at the Council of Nicaea. None.
That is an invention by some 19th and 20th century crackpots who never bothered to read history and certainly never bothered reading the statements of the Council.

You have already been corrected on this point and repeating it demonstrates a serious unwillingness to engage facts within your presentation. Simply repeating the lies of other people does not make you a “seeker of truth.” It makes you gullible. Repeating it without even checking in to the matter after being corrected means that you choose to remain ignorant.
That pretty well puts the kibosh on any other argument you wish to present. We have no reason to follow whatever you put forth as logic because we know that you are proceeding from an error in facts.

ETA: I have been looking in on different threads, this evening, as I deal with a work issue and I did not notice that the post to which I was responding preceded my previous post. Nevertheless, I am leaving this post alone. The notion that the canon was “created” at Nicaea is a silly notion with utterly no basis in fact and it has been corrected multiple times on the SDMB. This is The Straight Dope and seeing the same ignorance posted repeatedly gets frustrating even to people of my legendary patience.

[The_Second_Stone]

Here is a good place to start on the canon:

The canon of the New Testament is the set of books Christians regard as divinely inspired and constituting the New Testament of the Christian Bible. For most, it is an agreed-upon list of twenty-seven books that includes the Canonical Gospels, Acts, letters of the Apostles, and Revelation. The books of the canon of the New Testament were written mostly in the first century and finished by the year 150 AD. For the Orthodox, the recognition of these writings as authoritative was formalized in the Second Council of Trullan of 692, although it was nearly universally accepted in the mid 300s.[1] The Biblical canon was the result of debate and research, reaching its final term for Catholics at the dogmatic definition of the Council of Trent in the 16th Century, when the Old Testament Canon was finalized in the Catholic Church as well.[2]

Development of the New Testament canon

This is just a start. I hope that it educates you on some matters and that you find this suggested reading offered in a bit friendlier than some of the other suggestions offered. There are indeed a number of excluded texts that are historically and theologically interesting.

I apologize for the reception you have received as you deserve better, but these SDMB posters are who they are.

[tomndebb]

@The_Second_Stone

Here is a good place to start on the canon:

Development of the New Testament canon - Wikipedia

This is just a start. I hope that it educates you on some matters and that you find this suggested reading offered in a bit friendlier than some of the other suggestions offered. There are indeed a number of excluded texts that are historically and theologically interesting.

I apologize for the reception you have received as you deserve better, but these SDMB posters are who they are.

Note that nothing you have posted has changed any of the corrections posted, earlier. The asperity with which that poster has been received is based on his willingness to repeat errors after having been corrected and his unwillingness to support his own claims. In other words, his reception has been based on his actions.

Your own claim is misleading. There are many texts that have been excluded from the canon. Their exclusion occurred over the first two hundred years of the Christian history and NONE of them were excluded at Nicaea, having already been excluded before then.

[Mangetout]

@SeekerofTruth

Tom, I’m up for debate, but some members here want me to go do hours worth of research just to prove a point they have no interesting in seeing me prove. I’ve been on that jag before. You’re running this this like it’s a post graduate symposium at Harvard for a PhD in philosophy.

If that’s the attitude then it’s obvious that discussion is not what Straight Dope is about and I’m wasting my time. It was short but sweet, but I bid you all adieu.

You’d prefer everyone just took your assertions at face value, or you’ll run away. Got it, Brave Sir Robin.

[The_Second_Stone]

SeekerOfTruth, I’m sorry you’ve received such an un-Christian reception. I would not want my link to be misinterpreted in its intent. Wikipedia is a good place to start, it is not authoritative. It does in fact give a general description of how the various Christian churches viewed some of the various texts and how the canons came to be if you follow the links. For an authoritative view, Bart Erhman, a professor of theology has written a number of books and has lectures recorded that are written for the public audience at large.

I’ve personally made no claims as to when the canon was put together other than that not everything was included by the various churches, and as per the wiki link, this took at least a hundred to over a thousand years, depending on whose canon you choose. see the link.

[magellan01]

@tomndebb

Note that nothing you have posted has changed any of the corrections posted, earlier. The asperity with which that poster has been received is based on his willingness to repeat errors after having been corrected and his unwillingness to support his own claims. In other words, his reception has been based on his actions.

Your own claim is misleading. There are many texts that have been excluded from the canon. Their exclusion occurred over the first two hundred years of the Christian history and NONE of them were excluded at Nicaea, having already been excluded before then.

Asperity. New word for me:

noun
harshness of tone or manner.
“he pointed this out with some asperity”
synonyms: harshness, sharpness, abrasiveness, roughness, severity, acerbity, astringency, tartness, sarcasm
“he replied with some asperity in his tone”

harsh qualities or conditions.
plural noun: asperities
“the asperities of a harsh and divided society”
a rough edge on a surface.
plural noun: asperities

Cool.